DAYARAM KUNBI Vs. MOTIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal arises from a suit on a mortgage executed by Gangabai, the mother of the appellant. It has been held binding on the appellant to the extent of Rs. 300 said to have been paid by the mortgagee in satisfaction of a debt due by the appellant's father on a promissory note dated 14th March 1917. (Ex. P. 4). It is urged on the authority of Ghitnavis v. Nathu Sao A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 2, that a Hindu is under no obligation to pay the debts of his deceased father of which the recovery is barred by time and the debt on the promissory note was barred when the mortgage was executed on 15th July 1920. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the payment made by the mortgagee was in satisfaction of the promissory note for Rs. 300 (Ex. P-3) executed by the mortgagee himself on 12th February 1920 when he took hawala of the debt due on the promissory note dated 14th March 1917. The recovery of this latter debt was not barred by time on 12th February 1920 and there was no question of making the appellant liable for a time barred debt when the mortgage deed was executed.

(2.) I do not propose in second appeal to consider the correctness of the findings arrived at by the two lower Courts as to the facts and I accept the findings that the mortgagee did take hawala of the debt due on the promissory note of 14th March 1917 and did eventually pay. It has been asserted that the drawee of the promissory note brought a suit upon it and obtained a decree, but as the trial Court has pointed out, the plaint in this suit shows that the promissory note of 14th March 1917 was not one of those sued on.